Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: STEMO on 19 July 2017, 14:48:20
-
Work till you die:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774
-
Forty.....I remember forty. :-\
-
Hah. Retirement. A luxury only the generation before me can afford :P
-
Hah. Retirement. A luxury only the generation before me can afford :P
It is your duty to pay for the social care needed by STMO and his like. :)
Keeping coffin dodgers alive is an expensive business. ;)
-
Hah. Retirement. A luxury only the generation before me can afford :P
It is your duty to pay for the social care needed by STMO and his like. :)
Keeping coffin dodgers alive is an expensive business. ;)
I agree, Opti. I get my state pension next year, it's only about £700 a month but it should keep me in horlicks.
-
Hah. Retirement. A luxury only the generation before me can afford :P
It is your duty to pay for the social care needed by STMO and his like. :)
Keeping coffin dodgers alive is an expensive business. ;)
I agree, Opti. I get my state pension next year, it's only about £700 a month but it should keep me in horlicks incontinence pads.
Fixed ;D
-
Hah. Retirement. A luxury only the generation before me can afford :P
It is your duty to pay for the social care needed by STMO and his like. :)
Keeping coffin dodgers alive is an expensive business. ;)
I agree, Opti. I get my state pension next year, it's only about £700 a month but it should keep me in horlicks incontinence pads.
Fixed ;D
If I don't get the horlicks, I won't need the pads :P
-
Work till you die:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774
But seriously, in the 1980s I started paying into a private pension plan, not a lot but affordable. That plan now stands to exceed my state pension.
Message. Start one, even with a really small amount a month, cost of a few pints. The way things are going you'll get sod all state pension when you retire at 99.
-
Would you be happy if your child was being taught by a 68 year old teacher? Or if the nurse who was about to stick a huge needle in your arm was having trouble standing up? ;D
-
Would you be happy if your child was being taught by a 68 year old teacher? Or if the nurse who was about to stick a huge needle in your arm was having trouble standing up? ;D
I read an article about Japan recently where they are discussing raising retirement age to 75..
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/18/japan-doctors-propose-raising-retirement-age-to-75
One of Japan’s foremost advocates of positive ageing, Shigeaki Hinohara, died on Tuesday aged 105. The honorary head of St Luke’s International hospital in Tokyo had continued practising medicine after he turned 100.
Hinohara was a prolific lecturer who often called on older people to maintain an active social life and take control of their destiny.
-
Would you be happy if your child was being taught by a 68 year old teacher? Or if the nurse who was about to stick a huge needle in your arm was having trouble standing up? ;D
Several people assisting disabled passengers at Gatwick are well past retirement age, oldest I know of is almost 80 :o
-
Spare a thought too for the women born in the 1950's who instead of retiring at 60 will retire at 65 or more. Forgotten group.
Ten years ago my advice to the tunnie class was to either enjoy yourself to the hilt and arrive at 65 with not much and have the state " look after you" OR to invest every spare penny in a private pension or similar . Now I amnot so sure what Iwould advise. I have a horrible feeling that the only way out of national debts is swingeing inheritance tax and tax on windfalls like private pensions that have done too well. The argument being you dont need it.
-
Would you be happy if your child was being taught by a 68 year old teacher? Or if the nurse who was about to stick a huge needle in your arm was having trouble standing up? ;D
No problem: http://abcnews.go.com/US/american-airlines-dedicates-boeing-777-91-year-mechanic/story?id=48699313
::) ::) ::)
-
Spare a thought too for the women born in the 1950's who instead of retiring at 60 will retire at 65 or more. Forgotten group.
You mean those money grabbing sexist and ageist GRASPI idiots who are quite happy for a man born on the same day to have to wait 6 years more for their SP, and who (should) have known for 20+ years about the increase in their SP age to bring it into line with the mens SP age?
I'm afraid the thought I'm sparing for them probably isn't what you mean. They're all for equality providing it doesn't affect them.
-
Right. A about 0.000001% of people can carry on past 90, so no worries. ;D
-
Hah. Retirement. A luxury only the generation before me can afford :P
It is your duty to pay for the social care needed by STMO and his like. :)
Keeping coffin dodgers alive is an expensive business. ;)
I agree, Opti. I get my state pension next year, it's only about £700 a month but it should keep me in horlicks.
Ive got wait another 15years (used to be 13years) :'(
-
Ten years ago my advice to the tunnie class was to either enjoy yourself to the hilt and arrive at 65 with not much and have the state " look after you" OR to invest every spare penny in a private pension or similar . Now I amnot so sure what Iwould advise. I have a horrible feeling that the only way out of national debts is swingeing inheritance tax and tax on windfalls like private pensions that have done too well. The argument being you dont need it.
That's already here. It's called the Lifetime Allowance, meaning that if your private pension pot exceeds £1M the excess is taxed at up to 55%.
Yes £1M sounds (and is) a lot, but it's "only" enough to provide a yearly income of around £35-£40K per annum. Ok £35-40K is more than average wage, but it's hardly going to have you living in luxury.
-
Talking of being past their sell by date......
I avoid the old women on the tills at the supermarket like the plague. Half of them can't see properly and most are so slow all the frozen food has defrosted by the time I get back to the car. Why they are employed is a mystery to me.
I always head for the young women with the biggest tits and a friendly smile. Much better than listening to the old women telling me about their hip operation when I make the mistake of asking "how are you today"
-
Working until 68 is a long way off working until you die. People are living longer then ever these days, so are likely to have as long, or longer in retirement than people did in days gone by.
If my health holds out to a reasonable degree (probably unlikely) I have no plans to retire ever. Whats so good about sitting around the house bored, when I can do that at work and get paid for it. ;D
Cant se a problem with a 68 year old teacher or nurse as long as they are still capable and competent, which I'm sure most 69 year olds are.
-
Never could get my head around folk who have no intention of retiring. Sure if you really enjoy your job then maybe. My uncle is a good example of this. He works long hours 7 days a week , self employed heavy vehicle contractor. 82 i think.
So so many things out there you can do if you are not stuck in the daily grind.
-
This just about catches my missus, she's 47 now. Of course, she has no intention of working till she's 68.......possibly 63..... probably 60-61.
-
Never could get my head around folk who have no intention of retiring. Sure if you really enjoy your job then maybe. My uncle is a good example of this. He works long hours 7 days a week , self employed heavy vehicle contractor. 82 i think.
So so many things out there you can do if you are not stuck in the daily grind.
All true, if you have plenty of money, youthful enthusiasm for life, and good health. I have none of these things and I'm only 57. ;D
-
Working until 68 is a long way off working until you die. People are living longer then ever these days, so are likely to have as long, or longer in retirement than people did in days gone by.
If my health holds out to a reasonable degree (probably unlikely) I have no plans to retire ever. Whats so good about sitting around the house bored, when I can do that at work and get paid for it. ;D
Cant se a problem with a 68 year old teacher or nurse as long as they are still capable and competent, which I'm sure most 69 year olds are.
I agree :y
When I was 21 I knew the state pension was small so I made sure I paid into my company's pension scheme from then on (I could not join it before being 21). A lot of my contemparies were spending their spare cash on good living, but I invested in the future. At 60 I was able to retire on a comfortable pension, and now as a "1950s born women, at 63 I started to enjoy the extra income of the state pension.
Back in day when I was 21 many people retired at 60 for women and 65 for men, but died within a few years of retiring. Now people are living much longer, but regardless of the state pension situation I would highly recommend the young to do what I did; invest in a company or private pension, and save as much as possible. So many won't though, and will complain when they cannot receive enough pension when they want it from the state.
The welfare state is dead; for so long those that complained of the "nanny state" will get their wish. It will no longer exist!
As for "old" teachers; I had a number of teachers who were well past 65, but they knew their stuff and outshone the younger educational staff. As a youngster I found them great, and so now cannot see the problem of older staff in this profession or many others.
The state has not got the money to pay for it all without raising taxes, so get used to it ;)
-
A chap at work is 74 this year... Still holds a valid HGV and psv licence if only to get a decent health check every year :D
-
We should all work till we're 100, f**k the young 'uns, they can languish on benefits and zero hour contracts.
-
a lot depends on what job one does . a person with a strenuous heavy lifting involved job, or even a stressful occupation may not be able or fit enough to carry on
-
Never could get my head around folk who have no intention of retiring. Sure if you really enjoy your job then maybe. My uncle is a good example of this. He works long hours 7 days a week , self employed heavy vehicle contractor. 82 i think.
So so many things out there you can do if you are not stuck in the daily grind.
My great-uncle was still working at 80 and fitter than most 50yo at the time. Then he emigrated with his wife to the US to be with their daughter and family and he built their own granny annex. He came back to this country in his late 80's, where they could no longer afford the medical insurance and refurbished a run-down house and then retired as he was beginning to feel his age, but he did live until he was 98. :y :y :y
Like most things in life, your life, your personal adventure, you decide what suits you and your circumstances to decide when you want to retire. I enjoy working and likewise have no plans to retire while I'm enjoying myself and my health allows me to continue. :y :y :y
-
That's already here. It's called the Lifetime Allowance, meaning that if your private pension pot exceeds £1M the excess is taxed at up to 55%.
Yes £1M sounds (and is) a lot, but it's "only" enough to provide a yearly income of around £35-£40K per annum. Ok £35-40K is more than average wage, but it's hardly going to have you living in luxury.
I predict the LTA will only come down in the coming years, divorce is the only practical way to avoid this particular cash grab. >:( well, that and dying ;D
-
I predict the LTA will only come down in the coming years, divorce is the only practical way to avoid this particular cash grab. >:( well, that and dying ;D
It's possible, but I doubt it. If it comes down any more it'll start to hit lots of public sector workers like nurses, police, firemen etc. and that'll cause lots of fuss. Public sector defined benefit (final salary/career average) pensions have their 'notional pot' valued at 20 times the yearly pension payment. At times 20 it means a public sector pension of £50K p/a is possible without hitting the LTA. If the LTA were reduced to say £500K, you'd start affecting people with £25K p/a pensions.
There are already cases of GP's and other senior doctors retiring early from the NHS because they are hitting the LTA.
The times 20 multiplier is a crazily low value - should be more like 30 to reflect defined contribution reality - but that would be seen as another attack on FS pensions so I can't see that happening either.
Reducing the annual allowance further is my bet. Currently £40K but I can see it dropping to as low as £20K.
-
I predict the LTA will only come down in the coming years, divorce is the only practical way to avoid this particular cash grab. >:( well, that and dying ;D
It's possible, but I doubt it. If it comes down any more it'll start to hit lots of public sector workers like nurses, police, firemen etc. and that'll cause lots of fuss. Public sector defined benefit (final salary/career average) pensions have their 'notional pot' valued at 20 times the yearly pension payment. At times 20 it means a public sector pension of £50K p/a is possible without hitting the LTA. If the LTA were reduced to say £500K, you'd start affecting people with £25K p/a pensions.
There are already cases of GP's and other senior doctors retiring early from the NHS because they are hitting the LTA.
The times 20 multiplier is a crazily low value - should be more like 30 to reflect defined contribution reality - but that would be seen as another attack on FS pensions so I can't see that happening either.
Reducing the annual allowance further is my bet. Currently £40K but I can see it dropping to as low as £20K.
I agree, lowering the annual limit us possible, but I think it was recently discussed earlier this year/last year and was dropped as an option because it attacks those 40 somethings who have spent time saving for a house deposit and have not built up a pension provision. No that what they said previously is any barrier to them doing it in the future. ;D
In contrast, I could see them getting away with £750k and still arguing "well it only affects x% of the richest retirees". Not to mention that bashing gold plated diamond encrusted Final Salary pensions is flavour of the month atm. Not to mention the ability of the gov't to apply a fiddle factor to FS pensions (lower multiple for certain groups etc).
-
I only just read about the LTA thanks to this thread.
Now I'm depressed and considering a Guy Fawkes moment ;D
So to depress me further .. annual limit?
-
I only just read about the LTA thanks to this thread.
Now I'm depressed and considering a Guy Fawkes moment ;D
So to depress me further .. annual limit?
The maximum you are (currently) allowed to contribute to a pension plan in any one tax year (and receive tax relief) is limited to the lower of either £40K or your total income for the year. The Annual Allowance is also tapered down further by £1 for every £2 earned for those earning more than £150K p/a.
If you have no earnings, the most you can pay in is £3600. If you earn £10K, the most you can pay in is £10K. If you earn £20K, the most you can pay in is £20K. If you earn £30K, the most you can pay in is £30K. If you earn between £40K and £150K, the most you can pay in is £40K. If you earn £210K or more the most you can pay in is £10K.
The effect of all this is that (generally) as you get older and your seniority/salary rises you have more cash available to start thinking about retirement provision. However, unless you started paying into a pension plan early in your career it becomes difficult/impossible to pay in sufficiently large amounts to get anywhere near the LTA. As recently as 2011 it was possible to pay in up to £255K p/a, so you could reach the LTA in just 4 years. With the limit now at £40K (assuming you earn > 40K pa) it now takes 25 years (ignoring investment growth). If you're lucky enough to earn £210K p/a, then it'll take 100 years (again ignoring investment growth).
-
In contrast, I could see them getting away with £750k and still arguing "well it only affects x% of the richest retirees". Not to mention that bashing gold plated diamond encrusted Final Salary pensions is flavour of the month atm. Not to mention the ability of the gov't to apply a fiddle factor to FS pensions (lower multiple for certain groups etc).
IMV this govt is unlikely to "attack" the retired or about to retire - it's the Tory core vote and they'll need their votes in 4-5 years time.
The problem with bashing the "gold plated diamond encrusted Final Salary" pensions is that it give top ministers, judges, civil servants, doctors, police officers etc. the same rights as your low paid dinner lady or council worker. Any attempts to fudge the fiddle factors would either upset the unions if they applied equally to everyone, or end up being overturned in court if applied in a discriminatory way.
-
Thanks for the explanation! Much appreciated.
I'm some way off being able to put £40k p/a into my pension pot, so that won't affect me. The online calculator the pension plan provides predicts I will hit the LTA, however, assuming I:
Increase my contributions through my salary going up 3% YOY until retirement (possible, but unlikely)
The investment grows at 7% on average (possible, but unlikely!) until retirement
And I retire at 65 (possible, but I'll probably have corked it at 50 with my luck! ;D)
Or retire at 57 on a considerably smaller annual income but just below the LTA. Which is appealing. Y'know, assuming all the other pie-in-the-sky requirements are met for the next 19 years.
-
Thanks for the explanation! Much appreciated.
I'm some way off being able to put £40k p/a into my pension pot, so that won't affect me. The online calculator the pension plan provides predicts I will hit the LTA, however, assuming I:
Increase my contributions through my salary going up 3% YOY until retirement (possible, but unlikely)
The investment grows at 7% on average (possible, but unlikely!) until retirement
And I retire at 65 (possible, but I'll probably have corked it at 50 with my luck! ;D)
Or retire at 57 on a considerably smaller annual income but just below the LTA. Which is appealing. Y'know, assuming all the other pie-in-the-sky requirements are met for the next 19 years.
Good to hear you're well on your way. If only all other 30-40 year olds were as far sighted.
In order to put £40K into a Pension, you only have to contribute £32K (if you're a 20% tax payer) or £24K (if you're a 40% tax payer) The govt will make up the rest by refunding the tax you've already paid. In addition, the £40K is the total of all your and your companies payments into your plan. Presumably you've been auto-enrolled into your company scheme, and the company is paying in between 1%(legal minimum) and 5%-10% of your salary? If so, you need to subtract that amount from the £40K.
And you'll be surprised how quickly investments can grow. I've been contributing £100 per month since 1989 into a bog standard Pru with profits plan and it currently stands at close to £400K. It's up by 8% since Feb. If I'd only started out by paying in £200 (instead of wasting money tinkering with clapped out old Vauxhalls) I'd be knocking on the door of the LTA already. The UK stock market has maintained an average of about 8% p/a growth (with dividends re-invested) over that time period. Just give it time you'll get there.
-
I certainly wish I'd started a private pension much sooner than I did - I started work at 16 (1996) but only started paying in when I was ~25; I'd be much further along, if I had.
Even considering employers contributions (they only match up to 5%, which seems standard for most IT companies - certainly US owned ones - I was envious of a friend working for BT where they would match 10%!) I'm a reasonable ways off hitting the annual limit. I'd love to get closer but always seem to be financially somewhat stretched; probably because I've had a habit of taking on the biggest mortgage I can manage each time I've moved house.
Still, it works out in the long run, and the house should also be a sizeable investment come retirement, along with the BTL property assuming the gov't haven't managed to tax that strategy into oblivion by then, of course! (They're doing their best, certainly..)
If I could tell my 16 year old self what I know now, I'd be a rich man retiring at 40. But hey, who among us would have listened to our older self when we were 16?
-
Even considering employers contributions (they only match up to 5%, which seems standard for most IT companies - certainly US owned ones - I was envious of a friend working for BT where they would match 10%!) I'm a reasonable ways off hitting the annual limit. I'd love to get closer but always seem to be financially somewhat stretched; probably because I've had a habit of taking on the biggest mortgage I can manage each time I've moved house.
Its funny how priorities change isn't it, even 5 years ago I didn't really consider the pension plan when looking at a job, in this latest change it was the deciding factor between two (admittedly very close) roles. 5% matched in one vs 7% in the other rising to 10% after 5yrs service.
I'm a reasonable ways off hitting the annual limit. I'd love to get closer but always seem to be financially somewhat stretched; probably because I've had a habit of taking on the biggest mortgage I can manage each time I've moved house.
Yeah, but its no fun if you can afford it ;). That's what I keep telling myself anyway!
-
Even considering employers contributions (they only match up to 5%, which seems standard for most IT companies - certainly US owned ones - I was envious of a friend working for BT where they would match 10%!) I'm a reasonable ways off hitting the annual limit. I'd love to get closer but always seem to be financially somewhat stretched; probably because I've had a habit of taking on the biggest mortgage I can manage each time I've moved house.
Its funny how priorities change isn't it, even 5 years ago I didn't really consider the pension plan when looking at a job, in this latest change it was the deciding factor between two (admittedly very close) roles. 5% matched in one vs 7% in the other rising to 10% after 5yrs service.
I'm a reasonable ways off hitting the annual limit. I'd love to get closer but always seem to be financially somewhat stretched; probably because I've had a habit of taking on the biggest mortgage I can manage each time I've moved house.
Yeah, but its no fun if you can afford it ;). That's what I keep telling myself anyway!
That's a good deal, Sky dropped their's to 6%. But when I joined it was 8% :)
-
Certainly is! I think its because the company (Travis Perkins) has a lot of employees on lower salaries than the head office staff but we're all on the same pension plan. Conversely where I was before, the "corporate centre" staff had a different pension to the rest of the business and seeing as no-one in the Head Office was on less than about £30k, offering large matched contributions would be expensive!
-
Still, it works out in the long run, and the house should also be a sizeable investment come retirement, along with the BTL property assuming the gov't haven't managed to tax that strategy into oblivion by then, of course! (They're doing their best, certainly..)
I'm always nervous when people seem to pile all their money into their house and treat it as their pension. You've got to live somewhere once you retire, so you can't liberate all the money invested in the house. People I know seem very reluctant to downsize in retirement - they've collected all sorts of junk that just won't fit in a smaller house, plus they know their current area and have lots of friends there. And buying a smaller house probably won't free up much money anyway unless you're moving from a mansion into a 1 bed ex council flat.
Also not a fan of BTL unless you run it as a proper company with at least 5-10 properties - far too risky for me with just one property. Lots of accidental landlords gonna get hit with huge CGT bills when they come to sell. But each to their own.
If I could tell my 16 year old self what I know now, I'd be a rich man retiring at 40. But hey, who among us would have listened to our older self when we were 16?
I know what I'd tell my 16 year old self. Go for it with miss Redmond :-)
-
My previous matched upto 4%. Current has a crappy stakeholder scheme, but will do that (continuing the last one from when I worked here before if I can) and try to put 8-10% of my basic into my previous pot.
-
Certainly is! I think its because the company (Travis Perkins) has a lot of employees on lower salaries than the head office staff but we're all on the same pension plan. Conversely where I was before, the "corporate centre" staff had a different pension to the rest of the business and seeing as no-one in the Head Office was on less than about £30k, offering large matched contributions would be expensive!
Same place my other half works.. you'd be surprised how many people at head office earn less than £30k ;) The directors do swan in in their company Maseratis, though..
-
I think wifey's employers pay the equivalent of 13% of her annual salary into her pension. Teachers lower down the scale pay about 9% themselves and the employers contribution is a bout 16%.
-
I'm always nervous when people seem to pile all their money into their house and treat it as their pension. You've got to live somewhere once you retire, so you can't liberate all the money invested in the house. People I know seem very reluctant to downsize in retirement - they've collected all sorts of junk that just won't fit in a smaller house, plus they know their current area and have lots of friends there. And buying a smaller house probably won't free up much money anyway unless you're moving from a mansion into a 1 bed ex council flat.
That depends where you're moving, though.. Unless something crazy happens with property prices there are big differences between here (just about commutable to London) and, say, Yorkshire or deepest darkest Lincolnshire. Retirement is planned to be somewhere relatively remote, rural and near(ish) the coast, so should be a considerable drop in price.
This only works because I've (we've) got no kids, no plans for kids and almost certainly no other relatives left alive by the time we retire, of course.
Also not a fan of BTL unless you run it as a proper company with at least 5-10 properties - far too risky for me with just one property. Lots of accidental landlords gonna get hit with huge CGT bills when they come to sell. But each to their own.
CGT is (currently) limited to the rise in value since purchase, so I can't see how it will come as a shock should I sell - although I can see how it could come as a shock to some people (who assume it works just like any other house sale) ;) I am one of those accidental landlords, though - I kept the house in Bracknell when I moved to Northampton, partly as a fall-back in case the job situation changes radically and I need to be back where the tech giants are.
As an investment alone, I agree, it's a terrible idea - the tax rules are now skewed so heavily toward "large scale landlords" operating it as a business that it makes very little sense for someone like me.
I can't imagine trying to run 10 rentals, though, unless it was a full time job.. people are so difficult to deal with (and I mean that mostly in terms of the managing agents & trades, the tenants have been wonderful!) >:(
I know what I'd tell my 16 year old self. Go for it with miss Redmond :-)
Yeah, my advice would probably start with something like that, too :) Then I'd tell myself to buy fewer cars!
-
I think wifey's employers pay the equivalent of 13% of her annual salary into her pension. Teachers lower down the scale pay about 9% themselves and the employers contribution is a bout 16%.
Apples and Pears though.
The TPS is an unfunded final/average salary scheme which she now pays 9.6% of salary to be a member of, and she receives a benefit equivalent to about 20% of salary. I suppose it's fair to think of that as being up to 10% matched contributions. The employers contribution is actually entirely notional though - no money actually changes hands and there is no 'pot' being built up to pay teachers pensions in the future - it's all going to have to come out of future taxes paid at that time. There is no real risk to her pension - stock market crashes can wipe 50%+ off private pensions, but the TPS pension is govt backed so a safe as it's possible to be.
Public sector pensions are some of the most generous going. Equivalent private sector schemes have mostly been closed as they are just too expensive.
-
Same place my other half works.. you'd be surprised how many people at head office earn less than £30k ;) The directors do swan in in their company Maseratis, though..
Indeed, my comment on the £30k was referring to my last place of employment (RPC Containers) where the head office was tiny (30 people for a £3bn turnover business). TP seems like a much more traditional head office, ie there are people there who actually do things :y
I noticed when I went for interview that someone there also runs a brand spanking Model S, and it seems has their own private charge point to plug it in to :P
-
I think wifey's employers pay the equivalent of 13% of her annual salary into her pension. Teachers lower down the scale pay about 9% themselves and the employers contribution is a bout 16%.
Apples and Pears though.
The TPS is an unfunded final/average salary scheme which she now pays 9.6% of salary to be a member of, and she receives a benefit equivalent to about 20% of salary. I suppose it's fair to think of that as being up to 10% matched contributions. The employers contribution is actually entirely notional though - no money actually changes hands and there is no 'pot' being built up to pay teachers pensions in the future - it's all going to have to come out of future taxes paid at that time. There is no real risk to her pension - stock market crashes can wipe 50%+ off private pensions, but the TPS pension is govt backed so a safe as it's possible to be.
Public sector pensions are some of the most generous going. Equivalent private sector schemes have mostly been closed as they are just too expensive.
The contributions are on a sliding scale and, I think, she pays about 12% of her salary now. I just hope the wheels don't fall off because it's a lot of money.
-
I noticed when I went for interview that someone there also runs a brand spanking Model S, and it seems has their own private charge point to plug it in to :P
Yes .. apparently that caused great controversy! ;D (I'm usually in the same carpark at 4pm picking t'other half up .. but not in a Tesla ;D)
-
That depends where you're moving, though.. Unless something crazy happens with property prices there are big differences between here (just about commutable to London) and, say, Yorkshire or deepest darkest Lincolnshire. Retirement is planned to be somewhere relatively remote, rural and near(ish) the coast, so should be a considerable drop in price.
This only works because I've (we've) got no kids, no plans for kids and almost certainly no other relatives left alive by the time we retire, of course.
I don't like that idea either - but it's probably just me. Moving out into the wilderness (north of the A303 :-) ) is fine whilst you're young(ish) and healthy(ish). But sooner or later you'll struggle to get about - friends, shops, doctors and hospitals will be miles away - there will be no reliable bus service and something will happen that means you can't drive anymore. At that point you're stuffed if you can't afford to move back to somewhere more urban. And urban will be expensive because of all the old fogies that have got there before you and are just waiting to die and leave all their money to the grandkids.
-
You should have bought your BTL in Yorkshire, Aaron, then it could have worked out that the mortgage on it was paid long before you retired to it.
I could have managed it for you....for a small consideration ;D
-
Same place my other half works.. you'd be surprised how many people at head office earn less than £30k ;) The directors do swan in in their company Maseratis, though..
Indeed, my comment on the £30k was referring to my last place of employment (RPC Containers) where the head office was tiny (30 people for a £3bn turnover business). TP seems like a much more traditional head office, ie there are people there who actually do things :y
I noticed when I went for interview that someone there also runs a brand spanking Model S, and it seems has their own private charge point to plug it in to :P
Come to Sky, think we have around 15,000 people on site here :D
-
How safe are private pensions?
If the company goes tits up will the government step in?
-
You should have bought your BTL in Yorkshire, Aaron, then it could have worked out that the mortgage on it was paid long before you retired to it.
I could have managed it for you....for a small consideration ;D
Yes, Aaron.....a missed opportunity.
Like all people from Liverpool STMO is as honest as the day is long. :)
-
How safe are private pensions?
If the company goes tits up will the government step in?
Depends what it's invested in.
The 'big' company (like Prudential, Standard Life, Liverpool Victoria, Hargreves Landsdown, whoever) who 'supply' the pension (called the wrapper) hold your assets in a separate account to their own money. They cannot access your assets without your agreement, and if they went belly up your assets would be ring-fenced from their creditors. If one of the really big boys went bust (Prudential for example) then you'd probably be better off worrying about stocking up on Baked Beans and shotgun shells because the world would be coming to an end anyway.
You (or your advisor) choose which assets to hold within the pension 'wrapper'. You can invest in millions of things - individual companies, unit trusts, OEICS, Gold, Storage pods, airport parking spaces, cheese shops on the moon, whatever. If you invest the whole lot in one company, say Poly Peck or Northern Rock, and that company goes belly up, then you will lose the lot. If you invest your money across a range of different assets - say 10-20 different companies - then if one goes belly up you've only lost a portion of your assets/money.
You can invest in tracker funds which basically buy a bit of every company in the market they're tracking (FTSE100, FTSE250, All share, US, Europe, Global, whatever). Or you can invest in managed funds, where a fund manager attempts to pick 20-100 different companies that he/she thinks will out perform the rest of their peers. You pay higher charges for using managed funds, but hopefully they'll perform better than simple trackers. Some do, some don't.
If the company managing your tracker or managed fund goes bust, then again 'your' assets are ring fenced from the companies remaining assets. If one of the companies held in the fund goes bust then you would lose any money associated with that company, but the rest will be safe.
-
Yes .. apparently that caused great controversy! ;D (I'm usually in the same carpark at 4pm picking t'other half up .. but not in a Tesla ;D)
I can imagine. My first interview I saw it and though "oh cool they have wall chargers, could go to an electric car really easily working here". 2nd interview "ah that guy has an electric car charger". Would be tempting to get a BEV and use it just to see what happens as I'll bet it went in under the guise of being "usable for all employees ".
;D
-
Went my father in law died we were left a decent sum of money which enabled us to buy two small terraced houses close to a university outright, these provide a very substantial income per annum more than any pension fund could provide us with.My advice would be put any spare cash into bricks & mortar.
-
How safe are private pensions?
If the company goes tits up will the government step in?
Depends what it's invested in.
The 'big' company (like Prudential, Standard Life, Liverpool Victoria, Hargreves Landsdown, whoever) who 'supply' the pension (called the wrapper) hold your assets in a separate account to their own money. They cannot access your assets without your agreement, and if they went belly up your assets would be ring-fenced from their creditors. If one of the really big boys went bust (Prudential for example) then you'd probably be better off worrying about stocking up on Baked Beans and shotgun shells because the world would be coming to an end anyway.
You (or your advisor) choose which assets to hold within the pension 'wrapper'. You can invest in millions of things - individual companies, unit trusts, OEICS, Gold, Storage pods, airport parking spaces, cheese shops on the moon, whatever. If you invest the whole lot in one company, say Poly Peck or Northern Rock, and that company goes belly up, then you will lose the lot. If you invest your money across a range of different assets - say 10-20 different companies - then if one goes belly up you've only lost a portion of your assets/money.
You can invest in tracker funds which basically buy a bit of every company in the market they're tracking (FTSE100, FTSE250, All share, US, Europe, Global, whatever). Or you can invest in managed funds, where a fund manager attempts to pick 20-100 different companies that he/she thinks will out perform the rest of their peers. You pay higher charges for using managed funds, but hopefully they'll perform better than simple trackers. Some do, some don't.
If the company managing your tracker or managed fund goes bust, then again 'your' assets are ring fenced from the companies remaining assets. If one of the companies held in the fund goes bust then you would lose any money associated with that company, but the rest will be safe.
I have a general distrust of fund managers.
If the markets are performing well they take all the credit. If the market performs poorly apparently it is not their fault.
If they make poor decisions with your money they are not accountable and probably still get a huge bonus for failure.
-
How safe are private pensions?
If the company goes tits up will the government step in?
Depends what it's invested in.
The 'big' company (like Prudential, Standard Life, Liverpool Victoria, Hargreves Landsdown, whoever) who 'supply' the pension (called the wrapper) hold your assets in a separate account to their own money. They cannot access your assets without your agreement, and if they went belly up your assets would be ring-fenced from their creditors. If one of the really big boys went bust (Prudential for example) then you'd probably be better off worrying about stocking up on Baked Beans and shotgun shells because the world would be coming to an end anyway.
You (or your advisor) choose which assets to hold within the pension 'wrapper'. You can invest in millions of things - individual companies, unit trusts, OEICS, Gold, Storage pods, airport parking spaces, cheese shops on the moon, whatever. If you invest the whole lot in one company, say Poly Peck or Northern Rock, and that company goes belly up, then you will lose the lot. If you invest your money across a range of different assets - say 10-20 different companies - then if one goes belly up you've only lost a portion of your assets/money.
You can invest in tracker funds which basically buy a bit of every company in the market they're tracking (FTSE100, FTSE250, All share, US, Europe, Global, whatever). Or you can invest in managed funds, where a fund manager attempts to pick 20-100 different companies that he/she thinks will out perform the rest of their peers. You pay higher charges for using managed funds, but hopefully they'll perform better than simple trackers. Some do, some don't.
If the company managing your tracker or managed fund goes bust, then again 'your' assets are ring fenced from the companies remaining assets. If one of the companies held in the fund goes bust then you would lose any money associated with that company, but the rest will be safe.
I have a general distrust of fund managers.
If the markets are performing well they take all the credit. If the market performs poorly apparently it is not their fault.
If they make poor decisions with your money they are not accountable and probably still get a huge bonus for failure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40189970
-
If a fund manager puts half of his (other people's) money into stocks which perform poorly and the other half into stocks which perform well, then his fund should break even. Half his clients will win, the other half lose, but he will always make money.
-
It's good for governments as well, because the half that win pay tax on it. ;D
-
If a fund manager puts half of his (other people's) money into stocks which perform poorly and the other half into stocks which perform well, then his fund should break even. Half his clients will win, the other half lose, but he will always make money.
That's not how it works. In that situation all his clients would break even. The client is buying units in the fund. Each unit is identical, and consists of an identical mix of multiple underlying stocks/assets. The value of the units in the fund goes up and down as the values of the underlying stocks go up and down. Since all units are equal, everyone wins, loses or draws together.
It's true that the fund manager will always make money. However, a passive tracker is guaranteed to underperform the index it is tracking because there are always costs (even if it's only 0.1%). If the index rises 5%, the tracker will then return 4.9%. There are some markets where trackers work - but the big returns are in developing markets, China, India etc, and very often it's best to opt for a managed fund here.
-
It's good for governments as well, because the half that win pay tax on it. ;D
Not in a pension or ISA they don't. :y
-
I have a general distrust of fund managers.
If the markets are performing well they take all the credit. If the market performs poorly apparently it is not their fault.
If they make poor decisions with your money they are not accountable and probably still get a huge bonus for failure.
That's a fair enough criticism IMV, but it's no excuse for not doing anything. If you think you can do better than a fund manager then go for it. Or just use some form of tracker. The problem is that most people don't have the knowledge to pick individual stocks to form a balanced portfolio. You also need quite a lot of money (probably £20K+) to be able to buy enough different shares to mitigate the risk of one of the companies going bust.
Lumping it all on Northern Rock was disasterous for many, and there will be many other "Northern Rocks" in the future.
-
Think mine is 'Towers Watson', but I'm not sure how much they spread it about :-\
I don't follow the details of mine close enough, should look into it more. All I know is I used to pay in 4%, Sky 8%, but one year I put some of my pay rise to it, so I also put in 8%. It must clearly be proving expensive for Sky to now only offer 3%/6% as standard joining setup.
I think I can go into it and pick which funds to use, I can then choose where to put them, but I know zip all about markets and stuff, so I just leave it :-\
-
If a fund manager puts half of his (other people's) money into stocks which perform poorly and the other half into stocks which perform well, then his fund should break even. Half his clients will win, the other half lose, but he will always make money.
That's not how it works. In that situation all his clients would break even. The client is buying units in the fund. Each unit is identical, and consists of an identical mix of multiple underlying stocks/assets. The value of the units in the fund goes up and down as the values of the underlying stocks go up and down. Since all units are equal, everyone wins, loses or draws together.
It's true that the fund manager will always make money. However, a passive tracker is guaranteed to underperform the index it is tracking because there are always costs (even if it's only 0.1%). If the index rises 5%, the tracker will then return 4.9%. There are some markets where trackers work - but the big returns are in developing markets, China, India etc, and very often it's best to opt for a managed fund here.
I see, thank you :y
-
I have a general distrust of fund managers.
If the markets are performing well they take all the credit. If the market performs poorly apparently it is not their fault.
If they make poor decisions with your money they are not accountable and probably still get a huge bonus for failure.
That's a fair enough criticism IMV, but it's no excuse for not doing anything. If you think you can do better than a fund manager then go for it. Or just use some form of tracker. The problem is that most people don't have the knowledge to pick individual stocks to form a balanced portfolio. You also need quite a lot of money (probably £20K+) to be able to buy enough different shares to mitigate the risk of one of the companies going bust.
Lumping it all on Northern Rock was disasterous for many, and there will be many other "Northern Rocks" in the future.
My understanding (perhaps wrongly) is that most fund managers are 'whizzkids' in their early twenties and treat 'playing' with other peoples savings as a bit of fun with no consequences for them if it all goes tits up.
I had a managed fund with an endowment mortgage many years ago. I paid in more than £20000 which expert fund managers reduced to £6000. If I'd put the money in a shoe box under the bed it would still have been £20000. In a high interest bank account probably around £35000.
The financial services sector is a great place for the 'reward for failure' culture :(
-
Ive met quite a few fund managers. None of them were in their twenties. They were all serious and boring 40 somethings.
The reward for failure culture, which used to apply to the privileged few at the top, is long gone. Its all about compliance now.
Compliance depts. rule the roost nowadays.
-
I had a managed fund with an endowment mortgage many years ago. I paid in more than £20000 which expert fund managers reduced to £6000. If I'd put the money in a shoe box under the bed it would still have been £20000. In a high interest bank account probably around £35000.
The financial services sector is a great place for the 'reward for failure' culture :(
That problem is at least 20 years gone. And the problem wasn't so much that the investments lost money, it was that the charges on the funds were both opaque and huge so they ate into both the profits and the original investment. Things have changed massively in the past 10 years in particular.
It is perfectly possible nowadays to get managed funds with less than 1% p/a management fees, although some of the more exotic ones can go up to 2%. Here's one of the UK's most popular :
http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/i/invesco-perpetual-income-class-y-accumulation
A tracker fund can be less than 0.3%. Here's an example : http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/h/hsbc-ftse-all-world-index-class-c-accumulation
There are also platform fees to be added on top - basically paying a company to hold your selected funds in the wrapper. These can be percentage based or flat fee but you shouldn't be paying more than about 0.5% or £100-£200 (whichever is lower for the amounts you have) per year tops.
So a low cost tracker on a low cost platform should come in at less than 1%, and possibly less than 0.5%.
Disclosure : I don't hold either of those funds, and nor do I use HL anymore - too expensive @ 0.45%. ;D
-
I currently use Royal London, Aviva, and my daughter. I haven't checked how competitive or expensive the first two are for a while.
The third fund has done quite well and has no charges attached. The costs incurred in setting up that fund were all incurred a long time ago. ;D